“Hong Kong to educate public on crypto and ICOs“, by Wolfie Zhao (CoinDesk, 2018-01-30). In theory, an admirable if paternalistic use of public funds and public power. In practice, it sounds like the campaign is the government using people’s funds to remind them they must mind their taxes and regulations.

“Insistent or awkward pickups aren’t a crime…This fever for sending ‘pigs’ to the abattoir [slaughterhouse], far from helping empower women, in reality serves the interests of the enemies of sexual liberation.”

I don’t agree with the letter (English translation), but I respect its authors for calling attention to an aspect that they must realize will make them unpopular. See also this response by Caroline De Haas, which argues that flirting and harassment is not a difference of degrees but a difference of nature (with this I strongly agree. But how is nature measured? By the solicitor’s testimony? This may not be honest… By the response elicited? This may not be fair…); CNN’s article (CNN); and “French feminists blast Catherine Deneuve & Co over #MeToo slam“, by Nancy Tartaglione (Deadline).

“The psychology of inequality“, by Elizabeth Kolbert (The New Yorker). Kolbert notes that “feeling poor made people more willing to roll the dice”. A possible explanation for lottery participation…and recent cryptomania?

“How actual smart people talk about themselves“, by James Fallows (The Atlantic). Whoah there, “actual” in the title? That smarts! “[T]he clearest mark of intelligence, even ‘genius,’ is awareness of one’s limits and ignorance.”

“Against intellectual monopoly“, by Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine. A book (freely accessible online) that argues against intellectual property.